Clearly, this is the blogosphere-story-of-the-year (if not decade). It matters not that the Mainstream Media is covering up this scandal, the free-wheeling democratized Internet is getting the information out.

For more than a decade, we’ve been told that there is a scientific “consensus” that humans are causing global warming, that “the debate is over” and all “legitimate” scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this “consensus” really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

54 Comments

In spite of the revelations of this so call hoax, a number will still drink the Kool Aide and insist that the planet is dying. So, I wonder what other falsehood the left will try to develop in order to push their anti-freedom agenda.

BTW, I would advise and refrain from picking up or turning over rocks for a while; Al Gore may be under it!!!

HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY By Freeman Dyson professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton.

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Bruce, after reading them and the subsequent Nature article in which all of this is public data please issue them apologize.

Steven Andrew: You are the Mike referred in the quoted email correct? When was that email written?

Michael Mann: Yes, the email is from ‘99.

SA: Who wrote it?

MM: Phil Jones

SA: What does Phil Jones mean by “hide”?

MM: I think we expressed this best in the “RealClimate” article. Here’s an adapted version of the text: “As for the ‘hide the decline’, comment, I assume what Phil Jones was referring to was the well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy data diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand the reason for the “divergence”.”

SA: What was the Mike’s “trick”?

MM: All he (apparently) meant by “Mike’s Nature trick” was us, in our original ‘98 Nature article, showing the instrumental record after the proxy record ends (1980). Since both records were clearly demarcated and labeled in our article, there was really no room for misinterpretation of what we were showing. So while it’s unclear exactly what Phil Jones meant, “trick” would appear to mean “clever way to deal with the conundrum” that the proxy record ends in 1980. The easy way out of that conundrum is to just show in addition the more recent data from the instrumental record. Again, in our Nature article, this was all clearly labeled and explained, nothing secret or hidden.

SA: Is this much adieu about nothing, again?

MM: Of course. This is about the climate denial noise machine trying to drum up a manufactured controversy in advance of the most important climate summit (Copenhagen) in years.

These two emails are not the main problem. The main problem is the firing of people who don’t hold the “correct” viewpoint, the cherry picking peer reviewers who already agree with the premise intead of skeptical peer reviewers, the refusal to share data so it can be reproduced, and the advice to destroy documents that were asked for via FOI, which is actually a crime in the UK (if they did it and didn’t just say they would).

These are serious and indicate a complete lack of integrity as well as respect for the scientfiic method. NOTHING is so important that we can throw out science and hide away our data and not let people see it,

You know who did that? The priests of every religion throughout history. “I speak the truth any questoning will be punished, you cannot go into the secret sanctum only I can, your God speaks through me” etc. It is exactly the same thing.

They may know math and physics, but they are acting like high priests, not scientists. Anyone who cares about science should be horrified at the above practices.

release the raw data, let everyone try to reproduce results. let papers get peer reviewed by skeptics. If AGW holds up to that, then let’s do something about it. But until they actually peer review and subject the raw data to analysis, nothing this organization says means squat.

SO gillie, the truebeliever, quotes the accused liar explaining his lies. Except his explanation recommends using more information that has been exposed as lies:

I assume what Phil Jones was referring to was the well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy data diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction,

Translation:

tree ring data doesnt match the cooked books after 1960, so dont use it after 1960.

The problem is the tree ring data is another fraud to begin with and NONE of it is good. It ALL needs to be thrown out.

That tree ring data was based on the tree rings of a whopping twelve trees in a small area on a Siberian peninsula. Not only is it NOT representative of the climate in general, its not even representative of the larger area…

Stephen McIntyre, the aforementioned Canadian researcher, looked into tree-ring data from an examination of tree rings from 12 trees from a Siberian peninsula that seemed to be proof of warming. When rings from 35 nearby trees were included, temperature anomalies disappeared. A senior researcher at the EPS’s National Center for Environmental Economics, Alan Carlin, dared to say that “available observable data..invalidate the hypothesis” that humans cause dangerous global warming. He was silenced. [link]

Isn’t it odd how liberals believe whatever they need to when it involves taxing the producers more and more. When a hoax is proven they still don’t get it. In the last 10 years India and China have rumbled awake and been spewing pollutants into the atmosphere. At the same time the globe has cooled. Now the liberals will have to come up with another scam to tax the producers. I heard today, tax the producers to pay for war. Ah liberals. Who’s fired up for 2010 to clean the house. hehe

They are the biggest cheerleaders of the theory (along with the Democrat party) and are DEEPLY invested in it. They already have tried to cover up and distract from the scandal by focusing on the “crime” of the hacking, instead of the information obtained. Just as when Republicans obtained internal Democrat memos that showed Democrats were actively working to sabotage Miguel Estrada’s nomination precisely BECAUSE he was Hispanic — the media focused on the supposed “scandal” of how Republicans obtained the memos instead.

And thats exactly what they are doing again, with the Washington Post ignoring the scandal of the century and focusing instead on the phony “scandal” of how the emails were obtained.

The MSM will have to be bodily FORCED to cover this scandal, and even then they will try to minimize the damage, because they have been the number one source of global warming alarmism for the past decade.

See liberals don’t think it much of a scandal if the media and leftists lie and scam their way to the people being taxed severly over a fraud. They just shrug their shoulders and say, “what…no big deal, move on to the next scam of the masses. “

Gee–scientists working together to obscure evidence which doesn’t fit their hypothesis. Could they be wrong about evolution, too? Could it really be the case that natural selection CAN’T move from inorganic chemicals to the first cell? There is no evidence whatever that natural selection did that, not one fossil, not one experiment. Could science be wrong that cells evolved from inorganic chemicals, too?

This stuff is right out of a Robert Ludlum novel, can’t remember which one it was exactly but it was either “The Osterman Weekend”,”The Holcroft Covenant” or one of the others. It’s been awhile since I read those novels but the Plot was about some scientists doing similar things. Wow, how sci-fi eventually imitates life.

Knowingly misrepresenting facts to secure government funding is most definitely criminal in not only the United States, but the United Kingdom (where, I believe the government is already investigating this) and most other countries as well.

And no, they did not have “an outlier of data that they explained”, they had false data that misrepresented the facts and they knowingly tried to pass it off as truth. They also corrupted and destroyed the credibility of the “peer review” process, blocked genuine scientific findings that contradicted their agenda, worked to have people fired, politicized institutions, blocked legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests, and destroyed documents that they were required by law to maintain.

I’ve worked as a scientist since 78 and I’ve never heard trick used like that to mean anything else but fudging* the data. And I work a lot with Brits and modellers. Can’t say it isn’t ever used but if I heard it in conversation, I would assume the worst.

The sheer fact they will not share the raw data to me as a scientist screams something is wrong. There is no excuse for that nor for censoring people via peer-review. Those are normally taken as evidence of pseudo science.

“The sheer fact they will not share the raw data to me as a scientist screams something is wrong. There is no excuse for that nor for censoring people via peer-review. Those are normally taken as evidence of pseudo science.”

Wow–that sounds just like the scientists who are trying to shut down debate over whether intelligent design can be taught in schools. Did you see Expelled?

We have the same situation in Australia. Our Prime Minister Kevin (K)Rudd…. we call him Krudd…..is persisting with the global warming scam. We have the same kind of legislation as your cap and trade, which is now before our Senate. On top of that we have an Opposition leader (Malcolm Turnbull) who also believes the Global warming scam. Other members of the Opposition do not believe it, one such person is Kevin Andrews.

Krudd is persisting with Copenhagen, and if that legislation is passed we can kiss goodbye at least another $1000 per year related to this pernicious and unnecessary tax.

The emails that have been released confirmed my suspicions that the whole thing is a scam. What gets my goat is the amount of money that Gore has made out of this scam. He should be in jail with Bernie Madoff.

The entire argument of global warming has been built on computer models using data from experts. What if the computer model doesn’t matches reality? What if the computer model is intentionally set up to produce a certain result? What if the data the model is built on is phony or cherry-picked? All of these questions are answered, and in every case, the answer damages and destroys the argument that global warming believers make. This whole thing is a phony sham, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to face public ridicule.

Again, and I know no one is listening, if you reread this thread and substitute “evolution” for “global warming,” you’ll realize why there are so many of us who don’t trust scientists to tell us the truth about anything. The same biases which cause scientists to want to force global warming down our throat (“It’s a fact! It’s not a theory!”) are the same which want to feed us the lie of evolution.

[…] reading: World Net Daily: The great ‘global warming’ hoax GayPatriot: Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Telegraph: Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate and […]

[…] Government and Bombshell: Obama Poised To Cede Sovereignty According To British Lord GayPatriot: Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ The Powers That Be: Ed Begley Jr. Upset We’re Not All Gonna Die World Net Daily: The great […]

I’m not wasting my time Livewire. I said my piece and repeated it several times. As Ashpenaz makes clear in his comment above, the mentality of you deniers is similar to the creationists. I wasted far too much of my life arguing with people like that – its clear that they are beyond reason, as are you guys. Y’all fantasize that you have a scandal – hey, the scandal of the century – its just downright hilarious. I am just going to sit back and watch y’all make even bigger fools of yourselves.

the mentality of you deniers is similar to the creationists….Y’all fantasize that you have a scandal – hey, the scandal of the century – its just downright hilarious.

Tano, the only one denying science is YOU. You deny the science that calls AGW into question, falsely claiming there is some “consensus” — which in itself shows your outright rejection of the scientific method. You deny the emails, confirmed by the source as accurate, that illustrate the corruption of the major proponents of AGW. You deny anything and everything that calls your “god” into question.

….the mentality of you deniers is similar to the creationists. I wasted far too much of my life arguing with people like that – its clear that they are beyond reason …. (Tano #41.)

Let me get this straight: Creationists are stupidly stuck in their ignorant religion and you just can’t reason with them ….but… those who accept the man made global warming theory supported by a “consensus of scientists” who mainly have faith in their belief are …….

No, Ashpenaz, that movie had a lot of false information. Like people claiming to be fired who actually were hired back long before that movie. And truthfully do you ever trust ANY story from a disgruntled employee or ex employee? They all say “I was fired cause of this or that” I’ve met few people admit “I was fired for bad performance” I assume you’ve seen this: http://www.expelledexposed.com/

And the simple fact is, ID is NOT science, by definition. That’s not meant to be insulting, it’s just not science. So of course, it has no support. The math department has teachers who teach math, not english. It’s the same way for science deparments. They don’t teach other subjects. All the “holes” are already taught in class anyway, where are we, where are we going, what do we know.

But back to the matter at hand: scientists do have emotions and cling to their pet theories, something Tano cannot admit. This is any scientist, whether it’s AGW or string theory. Plate tectonics took a long time to catch on, so did the big bang theory.

These “scientists” want to force AGW on people instead of letting the natural way of building consensus run its course: by convincing people. The only way to convince anyone is to share data, to allow peer reviews by skeptics, to support diverse opinions and attack the data, not each other. But I read one quote by a prominent researcher (it’s buried in a book here) that said “it’s ok to exagerate because the issue is so important”. no, it’s never ok, not in science.

These people have hung up their scientist coats and put on their high priest robes, placed the data in some holy sanctum no one is allowed to enter, and claim they are the only ones who can interpret the truth for others.

How is Intelligent Design less of a science that archaeology? When you look at Stonehenge, do you assume that it is a natural outcropping or made by design? How is looking at a cell and seeing evidence of design less scientific than looking at Stonehenge and seeing evidence of design?

[…] Government and Bombshell: Obama Poised To Cede Sovereignty According To British Lord GayPatriot: Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ World Net Daily: The great ‘global warming’ hoax Ztower: President Outasync taking […]

[…] Investigated By Penn State GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Gateway Pundit: “Hockey Stick” Graph Creator Mann to Be Investigated by Penn State and […]

[…] make her the Flat Earth Czar. GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Times Online: […]